From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stinchcomb v. Birkholz

United States District Court, Central District of California
Nov 7, 2022
2:22-cv-05024-SSS (GJS) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-05024-SSS (GJS)

11-07-2022

Kenneth Lee Stinchcomb v. Brian Birkholz


Present: Hon. Gail J. Standish, United States Magistrate Judge.

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to Respond to Petition

On August 24, 2022, the Petition in this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas action was served upon Respondent. [Dkt. 3, “August 24 Order.”] On September 19, 2022, counsel for Respondent entered an appearance. [Dkt. 4.] Under the August 24 Order, Respondent was required to file and serve an Answer to the Petition by no later than October 23, 2022; however, no Answer, or request for an extension of time, has been filed.

Accordingly, Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why sanctions should not issue based on his failure to comply with the August 24 Order and to respond to the Petition. By no later than November 21, 2022, Respondent shall file and serve a Response to this Order to Show Cause explaining why his noncompliance. Alternatively, Respondent may comply with this Order to Show Cause by filing and serving his Answer to the Petition by that same November 21 deadline.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Stinchcomb v. Birkholz

United States District Court, Central District of California
Nov 7, 2022
2:22-cv-05024-SSS (GJS) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Stinchcomb v. Birkholz

Case Details

Full title:Kenneth Lee Stinchcomb v. Brian Birkholz

Court:United States District Court, Central District of California

Date published: Nov 7, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-05024-SSS (GJS) (C.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2022)